<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BBC Unleashes Botnet For &#8216;Investigation&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/</link>
	<description>Ethical Hacking, Penetration Testing &#38; Computer Security</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:17:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bogwitch</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/#comment-135162</link>
		<dc:creator>Bogwitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:32:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=1590#comment-135162</guid>
		<description>After reading more in-depth, it does appear that the BBC is in breach of the Computer Misuse Act insofar as they installed a wallpaper. The accusation that the BBC is more responsible than security researchers carries little weight with me - security researchers will try always attempt to keep within the law - something that the BBC decided not to.
I have been trying to find a sample of the wallpaper that the BBC distributed but I have not been successful thus far, if anyone has a source, please provide it!
As for the suggestion that the BBC explained to users that they were infected with a trojan, it is worth noting that the BBC intentionally picked non-UK/USA based computers for this demonstration, where the use of the English language will be less. They did nothing to prevent the computers from being re-infected via the same vectors.
The cynic in me thinks that they selected non-UK/USA computers to prevent posible litigation. It is noted that the Police in the UK will not act unless a complaint is made by a victim...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After reading more in-depth, it does appear that the BBC is in breach of the Computer Misuse Act insofar as they installed a wallpaper. The accusation that the BBC is more responsible than security researchers carries little weight with me &#8211; security researchers will try always attempt to keep within the law &#8211; something that the BBC decided not to.<br />
I have been trying to find a sample of the wallpaper that the BBC distributed but I have not been successful thus far, if anyone has a source, please provide it!<br />
As for the suggestion that the BBC explained to users that they were infected with a trojan, it is worth noting that the BBC intentionally picked non-UK/USA based computers for this demonstration, where the use of the English language will be less. They did nothing to prevent the computers from being re-infected via the same vectors.<br />
The cynic in me thinks that they selected non-UK/USA computers to prevent posible litigation. It is noted that the Police in the UK will not act unless a complaint is made by a victim&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dio</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/#comment-134891</link>
		<dc:creator>dio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=1590#comment-134891</guid>
		<description>I have blogged extensively about this on www(.dot)conanthedestroyer(.dot)net

Arguments about how they broke the law are a complete farce.  Security researchers do this all the time but do not want people to know about it because they want to reserve that right for themselves.  All the while they sell products to fix the problem, but in actuality they are wholly ineffective.

I applaud and completely stand by the BBC action.  What did they do?  They took 22k bots off the network.  What did any of the security companies do lately?  Watch, monitor, report.  Doesnt sound like action to me guys.  Better luck next time.

Read my blog for more on cyberwar and cybercrime aspects of this nefarious scourge.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have blogged extensively about this on www(.dot)conanthedestroyer(.dot)net</p>
<p>Arguments about how they broke the law are a complete farce.  Security researchers do this all the time but do not want people to know about it because they want to reserve that right for themselves.  All the while they sell products to fix the problem, but in actuality they are wholly ineffective.</p>
<p>I applaud and completely stand by the BBC action.  What did they do?  They took 22k bots off the network.  What did any of the security companies do lately?  Watch, monitor, report.  Doesnt sound like action to me guys.  Better luck next time.</p>
<p>Read my blog for more on cyberwar and cybercrime aspects of this nefarious scourge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: navin</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/#comment-134655</link>
		<dc:creator>navin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:50:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=1590#comment-134655</guid>
		<description>For those interested in this story:

Man behind BBC botnet defends decision:
http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/man-behind-bbc-botnet-defends-decision-586251

While Expert Says Its Unjustifiable:
http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/bbc-botnet-is-unjustifiable-says-expert-586256</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those interested in this story:</p>
<p>Man behind BBC botnet defends decision:<br />
<a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/man-behind-bbc-botnet-defends-decision-586251" rel="nofollow">http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/man-behind-bbc-botnet-defends-decision-586251</a></p>
<p>While Expert Says Its Unjustifiable:<br />
<a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/bbc-botnet-is-unjustifiable-says-expert-586256" rel="nofollow">http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/bbc-botnet-is-unjustifiable-says-expert-586256</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gVibe06</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/#comment-134548</link>
		<dc:creator>gVibe06</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:58:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=1590#comment-134548</guid>
		<description>I was hoping this was the angle you would take.  I kind of have this fishy feeling that the BBC did a little more than they reported.  Would you be able to resist spending a pile of cash if no one was watching and guaranteed getting away with it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was hoping this was the angle you would take.  I kind of have this fishy feeling that the BBC did a little more than they reported.  Would you be able to resist spending a pile of cash if no one was watching and guaranteed getting away with it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ethicalhack3r</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/#comment-134457</link>
		<dc:creator>ethicalhack3r</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:11:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=1590#comment-134457</guid>
		<description>You also need to consider which laws were broke in the countries in which the computers resided.

If the BBC can get away with it, why cant the average citisen? Its completely illegal and unethical.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You also need to consider which laws were broke in the countries in which the computers resided.</p>
<p>If the BBC can get away with it, why cant the average citisen? Its completely illegal and unethical.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bogwitch</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/#comment-134408</link>
		<dc:creator>Bogwitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=1590#comment-134408</guid>
		<description>There is a possibility that this was an offence under Paragraph 3, subsection (1)(b), Subsection (2)(b) applies that &#039;to impair the operation of any computer;&#039; of the Computer Misuse Act 1990

it can be argued that the actions taken by the BBC may have impaired the operation of computers by way of reduced bandwidth available or CPU cycles available.

That said, the act stipulates that there must be &#039;an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer&#039;

OK, where do you draw the line at modification? The action the BBC took would cause a modification to the volatile ram of the systems running, it is even possible that some code was swapped to the hard disk, although I doubt there would be an intention to cause the data to be swapped.

By the BBC lawyer definition, if I were to take over a botnet and use if for e.g. massively parallel hash cracking would I not be breaking the law?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a possibility that this was an offence under Paragraph 3, subsection (1)(b), Subsection (2)(b) applies that &#8216;to impair the operation of any computer;&#8217; of the Computer Misuse Act 1990</p>
<p>it can be argued that the actions taken by the BBC may have impaired the operation of computers by way of reduced bandwidth available or CPU cycles available.</p>
<p>That said, the act stipulates that there must be &#8216;an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer&#8217;</p>
<p>OK, where do you draw the line at modification? The action the BBC took would cause a modification to the volatile ram of the systems running, it is even possible that some code was swapped to the hard disk, although I doubt there would be an intention to cause the data to be swapped.</p>
<p>By the BBC lawyer definition, if I were to take over a botnet and use if for e.g. massively parallel hash cracking would I not be breaking the law?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ashish</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/#comment-134390</link>
		<dc:creator>ashish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=1590#comment-134390</guid>
		<description>good article, thanks for this useful info, I have dug and stumbled this article. I will keep visiting for more useful information.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>good article, thanks for this useful info, I have dug and stumbled this article. I will keep visiting for more useful information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: erik</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/#comment-134234</link>
		<dc:creator>erik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=1590#comment-134234</guid>
		<description>I like Lenny Zelter&#039;s name for this: British Botnet Corp ... lol

Linky: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/The-British-Botnet-Corporation-324874/?kc=rss</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like Lenny Zelter&#8217;s name for this: British Botnet Corp &#8230; lol</p>
<p>Linky: <a href="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/The-British-Botnet-Corporation-324874/?kc=rss" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/The-British-Botnet-Corporation-324874/?kc=rss</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: james</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2009/03/bbc-unleashes-botnet-for-investigation/#comment-134178</link>
		<dc:creator>james</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=1590#comment-134178</guid>
		<description>Yeah we just blogged about the same program and how it could be used in the SEO world to take down competitors websites.
The scariest thing was how cheap they can buy the computers for!!
As long as they have not caused any damage to computers but their own, I would of thought this is common practice for security or anti virus companies? Surely they need to do these tests in order to understand how the cyber criminals work?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah we just blogged about the same program and how it could be used in the SEO world to take down competitors websites.<br />
The scariest thing was how cheap they can buy the computers for!!<br />
As long as they have not caused any damage to computers but their own, I would of thought this is common practice for security or anti virus companies? Surely they need to do these tests in order to understand how the cyber criminals work?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

